Prosecution can submit a defendant’s own statements against him. It’s an exception to hearsay. But the defense can’t submit the defendant’s statements because that’s just bolstering.
Prosecution can use a hearsay exception because they can’t compel RA to testify against himself. Defense can’t use that exception as a way to admit testimony from their client without opening him up to cross examination.
Thanks for the clarification!
agree. I don't find his searches particularly noteworthy. JMO
Another dumb question- how would the D be able to date the videos with out the P giving them that info? If the P withholds that info thereby making them inadmissible how is that fair? I think I must be missing something important-The videos were only labeled with months.
#UPDATE: Doesn’t appear any videos will be shown today. The defense says they can’t say for sure when the videos are from because they only got them in folders labeled with months in the discovery. Judge Gull said if they can’t verify that she won’t let them in.
12:15 PM · Nov 1, 2024
x.com
x.com
Doubtful imo. There have been many movies with this general plot where a teen holds a man (or a family even) hostage. Could be a simple as he was trying to recall the name of a movie he had previously seen or heard about. I googled the plot as a search term and many titles and plots popped up. So really, imo, the State is speculating that it’s nefarious and a sign of guilt without actually backing it up with evidence. I am aware we don’t all agree on what is evidence or not in this case and that’s fine too. Moo.
The timing of the defense’s motion to have the agent appear by video conference makes me think what tlcya said is exactly what happened (the general premise). They were going to use him, but he became unavailable so thought they would just have Gootee testify. Problem is it looks like he didn’t write the 302, so he can’t even use that as a basis for his own recollection.
So maybe the P is trying to force the defendant to testify?
“DNA is not always detectable, meaning that it is possible to have someone touch an object but not leave behind detectable DNA because … some people leave more of their skin cells behind than others, i.e., some people are better ‘shedders’ of their DNA than others. There are also other factors that affect the amount of DNA left on an object, such as the length of contact, the roughness or smoothness of the surface, the type of contact, the existence or nonexistence of fluids, such as sweat, and degradation on the object.”
The prosecution probably turned over all sorts of inadmissible stuff in discovery. If the prosecution was never going to use it at trial, it doesn’t have to be admissible. It’s also not the prosecution’s job to go and ensure the admissibility of the defense’s evidence. If the defense wanted admissible video, they should have gotten such directly from IDOC with appropriate validations as to the accuracy and context of the video.
Welcome. It has been a source of confusion and Heavy really should have corrected it by now.
The crimes happened outside in the elements/>>>wind, water, time elapsed overnight, no surfaces for fingerprints, etc.
